Question: Everyone should be forbidden to marry women. Perhaps this [woman that he wants to marry] is the one whom the Shali'ach was Mekadesh!

Partial Answer #1: R. Tam says that women are believed to say "I did not become Mekudeshes." This answers for women who were adults (Bogros, when the Shali'ach was sent).

Objection: How can we answer for [women who were Na'aros or] minors, if their father already died [before she wants to marry? Perhaps he was Mekadesh her through the Shali'ach!]

Answer #2: Mid'Oraisa, even he (the Meshale'ach) may marry, for we follow the majority, i.e. [the woman whom he wants to marry now is] not a relative of the one Mekudeshes [through the Shali'ach];

It is a mere fine because he made a Shali'ach Stam and did not specify to him "be Mekadesh Plonis [to me]." [Chachamim] fined him. They did not fine others.

Question: It should be a Torah Isur, for [the Isur is] Kavu'a (it did not separate from the majority). Every [Safek Isur] Kavu'a is like an even Safek! (We do not follow the majority.)

Answer: We say that Kavu'a is like an even Safek only when the Isur is recognized by itself (at the time the Safek began), and the Heter is recognized by itself;

When the Isur is not recognized by itself, we do not apply the law of Kavu'a. (Others consider this Kavu'a. See the discussion in Arzei ha'Levanon.)

Explanation: This is of a Zav, Zavah or Yoledes. Each brings Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of. "Stumah" means that the owner did not specify at the time of purchase which will be [for the Chatas, and which for the Olah].

Therefore, it mentions Stumah, for if he specified, [the Tana] would have to elaborate to say which flew away, the Olah or the Chatas. Therefore, he was concise, and said that one of them flew away. (Tosfos Yom Tov Kinim 2:1 - it seems that Tosfos' text of the Gemara did not say that there is no solution for a specified Ken.)

Explanation: (Why are other Kinim fine?) Perhaps this (that Shimon wants to use) is the one that flew, i.e. and it was fixed to be for Reuven. How can Shimon fulfill his obligation with it?!

Question: We already explained that we did not fine others [who did not send a Shali'ach for Kidushin. Why is this Mishnah difficult for R. Yochanan?!]

Answer: [Reish Lakish] understands that other Kinim, even of Reuven, are fine, if he needs one [bird] for another Korban. (Birkas Rosh - it would be Kosher for another Zivah, but not for a different obligation to bring birds);

[We ask] what is the reason? [R. Yochanan says that regarding Kidushin,] they fined him. Also here, they should fine him, for he did not guard his Ken, and say that this [bird he found now], it flew from the first Ken, and was fixed to be for his first Zivah!

Implied question: A woman is not totally Kavu'a, like I explained above (DH Asur)!

Answer: In any case, she slightly resembles Kavu'a, and it is proper to be stringent.

Explanation: When [the Shali'ach] found her (the woman he was Mekadesh) in the market, we should say that [the Meshale'ach] can be Mekadesh [any woman now], for she is unlike [an Isur] Kavu'a.

Explanation: [Because she returns to her fixed place,] this is like Kavu'a.

Explanation: E.g. he appointed the Shali'ach on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and all her relatives that Rachel could become forbidden through their Kidushin (i.e. her mother, grandmothers, daughters, granddaughters and sisters), they were married when the Shali'ach was appointed, on Rosh Chodesh Nisan;

Even if [some of these relatives] were divorced [or widowed] before the day [that the Meshale'ach wants to be Mekadesh Rachel], Rachel is permitted to the Meshale'ach, like the Gemara explains, that from the time he said (made a Shali'ach), they were married.

Explanation: He does not intend that [the Shali'ach] be Mekadesh to him a woman divorced afterwards;

Therefore, even if [the Shali'ach] was Mekadesh one of Rachel's relatives [in such a case], Rachel is not forbidden through the Kidushin, for he did not make him a Shali'ach for this, so the Kidushin of Rachel's relative does not take effect.

Explanation (cont.): Now we are thinking that a person's intent is only for what is in front of him. Therefore, we ask from the Mishnah;

Granted, the latter [man to vow], the earlier man, who already vowed, is in front of him. We can say that he intended [to bring Korbanos] for him. Therefore, he exempts himself through Korbanos [that he gives] to the first;

However, the first, is the latter [already a Nazir] when the first vowed?! If so, he did not intend to bring Korbanos for him. How can he be exempt from his vow through bringing Korbanos for the second?

Explanation: What is the case? She did not have a sister [at the time], and now she has.

Implied question: The Gemara should have asked "what is the case?" (Why does it say "what is the reason?")

Answer #1: The wording in Maseches Nazir is different [than other Masechtos]

Answer #2: It says "Mai Taima" because really, he knew that we discuss when they were married. In any case, now that they were divorced, we have a Safek, and we should forbid due to Safek;

We answer that one makes a Shali'ach regarding something he can do. I.e. surely, a person intends for something not in front of him. Therefore, the first is exempted through shaving the second;

However, Shelichus is different. One can make a Shali'ach only for something he could do himself at the time he makes the Shali'ach.

Here, since they were married [when he made the Shali'ach], he cannot make a Shali'ach to be Mekadesh [one of them] to him, even after she is divorced. Even if he was Mekadesh her, she is not Mekudeshes.

Question: Constantly, a woman tells her friend "knead dough for me, and separate Chalah for me." Also Talmidim learning from their Rebbi say so;

How does one become a Shali'ach for this? At the time she makes the Shelichus, she could not separate Chalah herself from this flour, which is not obligated. We do not separate Chalah from flour!

Answer (R. Tam): She can bring a kneaded dough, and say "this dough will be Chalah on (to exempt) this flour, when it is will be kneaded;

Things that are b'Yadah (within her power), this is not considered Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam. Since she can mix and knead the dough, this is called Ba l'Olam, since it is b'Yadah to do it;

It says in Kidushin (62b) "detached Peros of this patch will be Terumah on attached Peros of this patch when they will be detached", and they were detached, his words are fulfilled;

This is because anything b'Yado to do, it is not considered Mechusar Ma'aseh (an action needs to be done), and it is b'Yado to detach them.

Assertion: This reason alone does not suffice to say that he can make a Shali'ach here, since it is b'Yado to knead.

Source: It says in Yevamos (52a) one who tells his friend "write a Get to my Arusah. After I make Nisu'in, I will divorce her", this is a Get, because he could divorce her from now if he wanted;

We ask there "what is the law regarding [writing a Get] for his Yevamah?

Question: What was the question? It is b'Yado to have Bi'ah with her (Yibum works b'Al Korchah) and divorce her!

Answer: Rather, surely since now he cannot divorce her, he cannot make a Shali'ach, since it is Mechusar Ma'aseh to have Bi'ah with her;

Also here, since now he cannot separate, it is not called b'Yado just because he could knead and mix, so that he could make a Shali'ach, since it is Mechusar kneading and mixing.

Explanation: He prefers to challenge him also from R. Yoshiyah. He can challenge him explicitly from R. Yonason.

Citation of Gemara: [If he said] "they are Kayamin", his words have no effect.

Explanation: This is because it is a mistaken Hakamah. Perhaps she will vow about a matter that he cannot (i.e. surely does not want to) be Mekayem!

Explanation: [He should annul for her] when he leaves his house.

Explanation: This is an expression of forgetting. Or, I will be distracted with the journey. Therefore, he wants to appoint an overseer. The overseer's mind will be settled.

Question: Still, he should be able to annul for her from now, for now he remembers and his mind is be settled!

Answer #1: He wants to annul only vows she will take after he leaves, but not vows before he leaves, for this is slightly difficult for him (perhaps he would want to be Mekayem some of them).

Question: He should tell her now "all vows you will take from when I leave until I return, are annulled"!

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (b)): Amidst this there will be quarrels between them. This is always difficult for her. (Leket ha'Kotzrim - she resents that he is Mevatel all her words. If he is about to travel, she is not adamant.)

Note: Birkas Rosh says that from here to the end of this Dibur is a Hagahah (comment).

Reference: In Nedarim we asked whether or not her husband can annul without hearing [her] voice, and also Hafarah of a Shali'ach does not help until the husband hears the vow, for so we establish it there (72b).

Consequence: According to this, we can explain "he should annul for her", i.e. when he travels, her husband should annul for her, and the Hafarah will help when the husband comes and hears the vow;

If he will delay to annul until he returns and hears, perhaps he will be distracted when he hears, and refrain from annulling. Therefore, we ask that he should annul for her from now, and the Hafarah will help when he hears;

Granted, if he holds like Rabanan, this is fine that he cannot annul.

Conclusion: We answer that perhaps he will be distracted when he wants to travel, like I explained. Until here is a comment.

Observation: There was no need to discuss [that a second person vowed like the first. The Tana'im] argue also about the first [to vow].

Explanation: Since he attributed [the word] "Chetzi" to "Korban", i.e. he said Chetzi Korbanos, surely he intended for half the Korban, for he distanced the word "half" from the word "Nazir";

[If he said] Korbanos Chetzi Nazir Alai, he must bring a full Korban.

Explanation: Since he said the word "Chetzi" adjacent to "Nazir", his utterance connotes that "half" refers to Nezirus, and there is no obligation of any half-Nazir in the world.

Explanation: [They argue about] when he said "Harei Alai." Since he said "Harei Alai Legale'ach", he is obligated the entire Korban according to R. Meir, who says that we follow his initial words;

When he said "half a Nazir", he cannot [retract]. He is like one who said "Korbanos Chetzi Nazir Alai." He brings a full Korban.

Question: Why does it say this expression "since he said Alai, he is obligated the entire [Korban]"? It should say explicitly, [that R. Meir holds that] he is like one who said "Korbanos Chetzi Nezirus";

Rabanan hold that this is a Neder with its Pesach (reason to consider it a mistake, and permit it), like one who says "Chetzi Korbanos Nazir Alai"!

Answer: Rava said [that if one said] "Korbanos Chetzi Nazir Alai", he must bring a full Korban, because "half" refers to "Nazir";

However, in our Mishnah, it connotes to him (Rava) that the word "half" refers to "Alai". He is like one who said "Chetzi Korbanos Nazir Alai." (Therefore, he needed to say that R. Meir holds that "Harei Alai Legale'ach obligates the entire Korban, and then he tried to retract.)

Explanation: [He accepted Nezirus for] "thanks and praise of ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu who graced me and merited me." When a son is born, he is a Nazir. The Gemara asks that this is obvious!

Explanation: This is not an esteemed [baby. He did not accept Nezirus with intent for such a child.] Also regarding this, the Gemara asks that this is obvious!

However, if he said "when I will see a child for me", even [if he the fathered] a daughter, Tumtum or Androginus, he is a Nazir. Also regarding this, the Gemara asks that this is obvious!

Explanation: [The baby died after birth, but] we do not know whether he was a Nefel or a viable baby, and his [nine] months [in the womb] were completed. Or, [even if we know that his months were completed, if] he died in his mother's womb, he is not a Nazir. (So explains Likutei Halachos on our Mishnah, Zevach Todah DH Hipilah.)

The Gemara establishes this like R. Yehudah, who holds that one does not enter himself into a Safek;

R. Shimon is concerned for the Safek, and he is a Safek Nazir. Perhaps the miscarriage was a viable baby.

Therefore, it is good to stipulate and say "if he was viable, I am an obligatory Nazir due to my first utterance;

If it was not viable, e.g. its months were not completed, or he died in his mother's womb, and my first utterance had no effect [to make me a Nazir now], I am a Nazir Nedavah." I.e. from now I accept on myself Nezirus.

Explanation (cont.): He counts Nezirus and brings Korbanos, and he may drink wine and shave. Had he not stipulated, he would be messed up according to R. Shimon, for he cannot shave due to Safek. All his days he would be forbidden wine, shaving and Tum'ah.

Note: "All his days" means until he has a viable son. Then, after 30 more days, surely he may bring Korbanos and shave! R. Shimon (46a) holds that after Zerikah of any of the three Korbanos Nazir, he may drink wine and become Tamei. He may shave even on Shalmei Nedavah (46b)! Perhaps Tosfos means that according to R. Shimon's opinion about entering a Safek, all his days he would be forbidden. However, perhaps R. Shimon holds that one enters Safek Nezirus only because he holds that he is permitted through any Korban!

R. Shimon does not argue in a case when a daughter, Tumtum [or Androginus] was born. There is no Safek that when he said "when I will have a son", surely he meant a Vadai son, and not a Tumtum;

R. Shimon argues [then] only when she miscarried a male son. He is unsure whether it was viable, and it was a full son;

R. Shimon's words apply also to the Reisha, when he said "I will be a Nazir when I will have a son", and his wife miscarried... [and not only in the Seifa, when he stipulated about having a child].